MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4250315324 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.054

A55 LACK OF EXPERIMENTAL REPRODUCIBILITY IN PRECLINICAL RESEARCH IS INFLUENCED BY THE NUTRITIONAL PROFILE OF STANDARD RODENT CHOWS

2020· article· en· W4250315324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline J. Tuck, Giada De Palma, Kaede Takami, Bailey J. Brant, A Caminero Fernandez, David E. Reed, Jane Muir, Peter G. Gibson, Andrew Winterborn, P Bercík, Elena F. Verdú, S Vanner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutenRodentBiologyFood scienceMicrobiomeBioinformaticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Lack of experimental reproducibility, particularly in studies investigating the microbiota, is of growing concern to the scientific community. Factors such as environment, stress, and sex have been identified as contributors, whereas dietary composition has received less attention. Aims To profile the use of standard rodent chows in research institutions, analyze the nutrient content of common rodent chows, and assess the impact of different chows on microbiota profiles. Methods A survey was conducted to evaluate which rodent chows are used by research institutions worldwide. Seven standard rodent chows were selected for analysis of ingredients, fermentable carbohydrate (FODMAP) and gluten content. FODMAP content was measured by high-performance liquid-chromatography and enzymatic assays, and gluten content was assessed by a commercial kit using G12 antibody. Forty C57BL/6 mice were randomized to 4 groups of 10 mice (5 male, 5 female). Group A was euthanized at baseline. Group B received the breeding institution chow (LabDiet 5066). Group C received ResearchDiets AIN93G (low FODMAP and gluten content). Group D received LabDiet 5001 (high FODMAP and gluten content). After 3 weeks, cecal contents were collected and analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing; short- and branched-chain fatty acids (SCFA, BCFAs) content was also determined. Results Twenty-eight different types of rodent chows were reported to be used by 45 international survey respondents. Ingredient composition of the standard chows varied widely, resulting in differences in FODMAP and gluten content. Microbiota analysis of cecal contents revealed that gut microbiota composition was altered by the standard chows, as reflected by significantly different clusters in β-diversity analysis as well as by altered α-diversity. Microbiota diversity was also influenced by sex in Groups A and B (p<0.01). Total SCFA levels were lower (p=0.03) and BCFA levels were higher (p=0.01) in Group C compared to Group B. Conclusions Our results suggest that the composition of the diet not only significantly impacts gut microbiota profiles and fermentation patterns but may also emphasize sex differences in preclinical studies, with major implications for the reproducibility of results across laboratories. Funding Agencies CIHRThe Canadian Nutrition Society

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainReproducibility
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→